News images can be deceiving , what you see is not always indicative of the real story. This applies not only to images, but to news stories as well. What you read and/or see is not the entire event, but rather a version of the event that often contains various forms of bias.
The most common ways that bias manifests itself in the news are through world view, word choice, omissions, the limiting of debate, framing of the story, and a biased selection and use of sources.
Sources are important! You cannot always trust information from all sources.
There are four main influences that cause bias to apper in the news, and these are geography, ideology, institutional affiliations, and the nature of the medium. While all these influences do not necessarily affect every piece, most reporting is affected by at least one or two of these influences.
There are two major aspects of Institutional Affiliations that influence a media sources’ reporting of the news: Economic Affiliations and Political Affiliations. If a media source has strong economic ties to a particular business entity these ties may play a big part in what news we actually see and how this news is revealed. Similiarly, strong Political Affliations (e.g., liberal or conservative) within a media source can influence the type of news and the angle in which this news is depicted.
For example if you’re watching the regular 30-minute evening news program on your favorite TV channel, do you expect to get the same amount of information that you would get from reading the New York Times? While you might expect that the stories found on the front page of the Times would be covered fully in the evening news program, this is often not the case. The medium in which the news is presented directly influences how much information can be presented to the audience whether they are readers, listeners, or viewers. Therefore, the medium in which the news is presented has the potential to affect the way in which the audience interprets the events being described.
My advice is if you want the nitty gritty nuts and bolts of the news don’t rely on the “national state run media” and their talking points.
Read (Citizen Journalist) to get an accurate analysis of the news. (Citizen Journalist) is also commentary on the news.
Every news source you watch or listen to must be considered carefully including (Citizen Journalist) analysis and commentary.
For example: It was widely reported that the “Hands up, don’t shoot”, or simply “hands up”, slogan and gesture originaed after the August 2014 shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed African-American in Ferguson, Missouri, during a confrontation with a Caucasian police officer.
This phrase became a rallying cry for Ferguson residents, who took to the streets to protest the fatal shooting of a black 18-year-old by a white police officer, Darren Wilson. Witness accounts spread after the shooting that Brown had his hands raised in surrender, mouthing the words “Don’t shoot” as his last words before being shot execution-style. The gesture of raised hands became a symbol of outrage over mistreatment of unarmed black youth by police.
That narrative was called into question when a St. Louis County grand jury could not confirm those testimonies. And a recently released Department of Justice investigative report concluded the same.
Yet the gesture continues to be used today.
Lets set the record straight on the DOJ’s findings, especially after The Washington Post’s opinion writer Jonathan Capehart wrote that it was “built on a lie.”
“Hands up, don’t shoot” links directly to Brown’s death, and it went viral. After the shooting, St. Louis Rams players raised their hands as a symbolic gesture entering the field before a football game. Protesters chanted “Hands up, don’t shoot” during rallies after a grand jury in the state’s case against Wilson decided not to indict Wilson in Brown’s killing. The phrase and gesture were on signs, T-shirts, hashtags, memes and magazine covers.
In November 2014, a grand jury decided not to indict Wilson after finding that witness reports did not match up with evidence. Other witnesses recanted their original accounts or changed them, calling their veracity into question. In particular, the grand jury could not confirm the “Hands up, don’t shoot” narrative the way it was told after the shooting. By then, however, the phrase had taken on a message of its own.
On Dec. 1, 2014, four members of the Congressional Black Caucus repeated the gesture while delivering speeches on the House Floor titled, “Black in America: What Ferguson Says About Where We Are and Where We Need to Go.” Each of the members held up their hands, and the image spread widely online.
Yet the Department of Justice’s March 4, 2015, investigative report (PDF 86 Pages) on the shooting of Michael Brown found federal investigators could not confirm witness accounts that Brown signaled surrender before being killed execution-style. The department’s descriptions of about 40 witness testimonies show the original claims that Brown had his hands up were not accurate.
Some witnesses who claimed they saw Brown’s hands raised had testimonies that were inconsistent with physical and forensic evidence. Some admitted to federal investigators they felt pressured to retell the narrative that was being spread after Brown’s shooting. Others recanted their initial testimonies saying they had heard it through media reports or via social media. A few witnesses said Brown had his hands out to his side with his palms up, as if saying “What?” Others said Brown’s hands were not raised, as he was charging at Wilson. A few said Brown’s hands were “balled up.”
Investigators narrowed down the “hands up” claim to a witness – Witness 128 – who had told his family and neighbors his inaccurate version of events as crowds gathered minutes and hours after the shooting, the report says. Another witness could not confirm what she saw because of her poor vision, but she heard a man running around the apartments along the street where Wilson shot Brown. The man was saying something to the effect of, “The police shot my friend and his hands were up.” The witness said that “quickly became the narrative on the street, and to her frustration, people used it both as an excuse to riot and to create a ‘block party’ atmosphere.”
A key passage from the report:
Investigators tracked down several individuals who, via the aforementioned media, claimed to have witnessed Wilson shooting Brown as Brown held his hands up in clear surrender. All of these purported witnesses, upon being interviewed by law enforcement, acknowledged that they did not actually witness the shooting, but rather repeated what others told them in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. … Witness accounts suggesting that Brown was standing still with his hands raised in an unambiguous signal of surrender when Wilson shot Brown are inconsistent with the physical evidence, are otherwise not credible because of internal inconsistencies, or are not credible because of inconsistencies with other credible evidence. In contrast, Wilson’s account of Brown’s actions, if true, would establish that the shootings were not objectively unreasonable under the relevant Constitutional standards governing an officer’s use of deadly force.
Every news source you watch or listen to must be considered carefully. The news media can and does TWIST the news as fact. The “Hands up, don’t shoot” phrase was never spoken by Brown nor did he raise his hands to signal surrender. The “witnesses” did NOT actually see the shooting! They just repeated what others had told them just after the shooting.
This is a prime example of what people do and what the “national state run news” and local media does.
People are interviewed and tell a story. The story they tell may or may not be factual depending on how creditable the person is.
If the person telling the story is getting it second hand its NOT CREDITABLE until it is confirmed and documented!
The news today is little more than gossip told to another person without any real knowledge of what has happened.
So if you DO NOT want to watch or listen to “gossip news” and want to hear the real news as much as possible click on the links below:
(1) Breitbart.com (Real News) Breitbart (Breitbart will be overtaking foxnews ratings in the near future. Foxnews knows the future and it is Breitbart.com That why all of a sudden they are starting to report on Breitbart news articles. Congress is getting their “mind” right also since Trump was elected. Many news outlets will start to try and look more conservative as will spineless members of congress. Political correctness will start to die out but it will take some time because its like a cancer that needs treating.)
(2) Rush Limbaugh (Real News) Rush Limbaugh
(3) WORD Radio (The Upstate’s Talk Station) WORD Radio
(4) Drudge Report Drudge Report
(5) World Net Daily (WND.com) World Net Daily (WND.com)
(6) InfoWars.com (Alex Jones) Info Wars (Alex Jones)
Hidden in the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a provision that will allow the government to crack down with impunity against any media outlet it deems “propaganda”, the next piece of the legislation will provide substantial amounts of money to fund “counter propaganda,” to make sure the government’s own stories drown out alternative media and free thinking journalist not told what to say not given an unmarked press package.
This is extremely dangerous and worrying combining this with HR6393 we can see the type of world that we are allowing to be created for us these people took an oath to serve and protect the constitution if the constitution is abridged the people who sign the bill are literally committing treasonous tyranny.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
“The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state: it ought not, therefore, to be restrained in this commonwealth.”
John Adams, Samuel Adams, James Bowdoin (1780). Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. pp. Article XVI.Text